Post by: Number7 on May 03, 2016, 06:23:44 PM
Charles Spurgeon
(https://scontent.ftpa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13177128_10201805377013361_474164067498001729_n.jpg?oh=35dafbad4acce64085bc10bcf24da62a&oe=579D1B55)
The coronation celebration going on after Donald Trump won in Indiana tonight is an outright indictment of the Republican National Committee and their utter incompetence. It has been since 2004 that Republicans have had someone to vote for, instead of a senile ex-soldier, a rich mealy mouthed wimp, and an ego-maniacal billionaire.
I changed my voter ID to No Party Affiliation over fifteen years ago because I saw the corruption of the GOP, but never imagined the complete collapse of integrity, honesty and competence as had been obvious the last eight years.
Mark Levin is right.
America needs a new party.
Post by: Little Joe on May 03, 2016, 06:25:59 PM
Choose Neither...So what's left besides:
Charles Spurgeon
(https://scontent.ftpa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13177128_10201805377013361_474164067498001729_n.jpg?oh=35dafbad4acce64085bc10bcf24da62a&oe=579D1B55)
The coronation celebration going on after Donald Trump won in Indiana tonight is an outright indictment of the Republican National Committee and their utter incompetence. It has been since 2004 that Republicans have had someone to vote for, instead of a senile ex-soldier, a rich mealy mouthed wimp, and an ego-maniacal billionaire.
I changed my voter ID to No Party Affiliation over fifteen years ago because I saw the corruption of the GOP, but never imagined the complete collapse of integrity, honesty and competence as had been obvious the last eight years.
Mark Levin is right.
America needs a new party.
"Don't blame me, I didn't vote for (trump/hillary)".
You are going to have two choices, or the option of not voting at all. Which are you going to choose?
Post by: LevelWing on May 03, 2016, 06:37:52 PM
So what's left besides:There are generally other candidates on the ballot as well along with the option of writing someone in.
"Don't blame me, I didn't vote for (trump/hillary)".
You are going to have two choices, or the option of not voting at all. Which are you going to choose?
Post by: Number7 on May 03, 2016, 06:38:49 PM
By the way....
(https://scontent.ftpa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13151647_1164293983601590_1385589449608630422_n.jpg?oh=b1f97a6822cae2cbf79748c61d798317&oe=57E332C8)
...and Ted Cruz didn't deny it.
Post by: FastEddieB on May 03, 2016, 07:01:35 PM
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill."
Rush (not Limbaugh)
Post by: nddons on May 03, 2016, 07:09:31 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 03, 2016, 07:40:01 PM
Post by: nddons on May 03, 2016, 09:32:09 PM
Post by: JeffDG on May 03, 2016, 09:42:47 PM
Post by: Anthony on May 04, 2016, 05:04:38 AM
Post by: Mr Pou on May 04, 2016, 05:17:50 AM
I'm done. I've been a Republican since 1978. It's been quite a run. May it rest in peace.
The GOP brought this upon themselves. At this point, as the old song says "We don't need no water let the motherfucker burn. Burn, motherfucker, burn."
Post by: FastEddieB on May 04, 2016, 05:20:10 AM
If you don't vote for Trump, you are voting for HILLARY.
Nope.
Abstaining from voting is an active choice, signifying that neither option is palatable enough for one to support.
Compare: "I voted for Hillary, and now gun rights have been seriously eroded, and the national debt is on its way to an unsustainable 40 trillion and economic collapse".
...with...
"I voted for Trump and now the military has become a black ops arm of the Executive, torturing and murdering not only suspected/captured terrorists but their families as well."
Nope, can't get behind either scenario.
Post by: Anthony on May 04, 2016, 05:40:12 AM
This has become a more Progressive/Democrat country, especially now that illegal aliens, and dead people vote for Democrats. If people don't come out and actively vote for Trump, they are voting for the Democrat candidate. So, FastEddie, you will vote for Hillary, but I think you will secretly pull the lever for her anyway.
Post by: FastEddieB on May 04, 2016, 05:52:06 AM
Nope.
This has become a more Progressive/Democrat country, especially now that illegal aliens, and dead people vote for Democrats. If people don't come out and actively vote for Trump, they are voting for the Democrat candidate. So, FastEddie, you will vote for Hillary, but I think you will secretly pull the lever for her anyway.
I thought redefining words to their advantage was something libs more often get accused of.
But, if you want to equate not voting with voting, not much I can do about that.
Post by: Gary on May 04, 2016, 05:59:44 AM
Gary
Post by: Little Joe on May 04, 2016, 06:03:10 AM
I thought redefining words to their advantage was something libs more often get accused of.I disagree.
But, if you want to equate not voting with voting, not much I can do about that.
Quote
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Post by: Lucifer on May 04, 2016, 06:10:57 AM
Well, it is what it is... Can't say I can remember a election with two more unpalatable choices. Guess we will spend the next few months debating which candidate is the worst. Sad!
Gary
I don't think so. The hard core ideologues will of course continue their jihad but most folks will realize what is ahead this November, and the prospect of a Clinton presidency which is really 4 more years of Obama will turn many off. The GOP elites will start coalescing behind Trump in order to retain their power base, which is what really matters to them.
Post by: nddons on May 04, 2016, 06:49:36 AM
If you don't vote for Trump, you are voting for HILLARY. I know what I will get with Hillary, at least with Trump we have a chance at returning to capitalism, and keeping our gun rights.(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160504/a17e4ed6b397fec3d80f020795f13e55.jpg)
Post by: nddons on May 04, 2016, 06:51:22 AM
The GOP brought this upon themselves. At this point, as the old song says "We don't need no water let the motherfucker burn. Burn, motherfucker, burn."And turn the Party of Lincoln over to a New York Democrat. Good luck with that.
Post by: Mr Pou on May 04, 2016, 07:06:31 AM
And turn the Party of Lincoln over to a New York Democrat. Good luck with that.
In the end the ones pulling the strings are largely the same. Look how ineffective the last two GOP SotH have been. Still establishment, still bought and paid for.
Post by: nddons on May 04, 2016, 07:23:42 AM
In the end the ones pulling the strings are largely the same. Look how ineffective the last two GOP SotH have been. Still establishment, still bought and paid for.I challenged a Trump fan friend of mine to dinner at Manny's in Minneapolis 4 years from today. I told him that under a President Trump the establishment will be just as entrenched, just as powerful, and just as ubiquitous as it is today. The only difference is that it will be benefiting Trump personally.
He disagrees.
I think I'm going to order the 85 Day Aged Bone-In Ribeye.
Post by: Mr Pou on May 04, 2016, 07:37:05 AM
I challenged a Trump fan friend of mine to dinner at Manny's in Minneapolis 4 years from today. I told him that under a President Trump the establishment will be just as entrenched, just as powerful, and just as ubiquitous as it is today. The only difference is that it will be benefiting Trump personally.
I don't doubt it, really the last few cycles we've been offered Democrat or Democrat Lite. I don't know the solution, I don't believe Trump is the solution, the GOP certainly offers no solution. I do believe Trump will be better for the country than Hillary, but either way it's a pretty sad these are the choices.
Post by: LevelWing on May 04, 2016, 07:39:28 AM
If you don't vote for Trump, you are voting for HILLARY. I know what I will get with Hillary, at least with Trump we have a chance at returning to capitalism, and keeping our gun rights.I don't agree with this. Ben Shapiro has a great explanation for why this logic doesn't make sense:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/3960/no-failing-vote-trump-isnt-vote-hillary-ben-shapiro
Post by: bflynn on May 04, 2016, 07:49:31 AM
Why choose the lesser evil?
Post by: Anthony on May 04, 2016, 08:08:27 AM
I'm thinking of voting for the Devil.
Why choose the lesser evil?
Lucifer will be proud. Hillary is the DEVIL.
Post by: Lucifer on May 04, 2016, 08:10:40 AM
I'm thinking of voting for the Devil.
Why choose the lesser evil?
Why, thank you!! ;D
Post by: Lucifer on May 04, 2016, 08:11:34 AM
Lucifer will be proud. Hillary is the DEVIL.
Hey hey hey.......There are things that not even I would do!
Post by: nddons on May 04, 2016, 08:13:30 AM
I don't agree with this. Ben Shapiro has a great explanation for why this logic doesn't make sense:Bingo.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/3960/no-failing-vote-trump-isnt-vote-hillary-ben-shapiro
Post by: acrogimp on May 04, 2016, 08:20:43 AM
I don't agree with this. Ben Shapiro has a great explanation for why this logic doesn't make sense:Ben is all wet and his argument fails on all attempts.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/3960/no-failing-vote-trump-isnt-vote-hillary-ben-shapiro
This isn't a classroom debate session, this is the real fucking world, and all that matter is results, who wins - and withholding a vote, or wasting it on a 3rd party or write in IS the same, by result, as voting for the winner if you had the possibility of voting for the person who won the nomination in the party you belong to or most closely identify with instead.
Shapiro is an admitted hardcore #neverTrump guy, that is his prerogative, but you don't get to fuck everybody else over and then blame it on them - if you are going to 'stand on principle' for the 'future of conservatism in America', and I know there will be people who do so, you damn well better have the balls, maturity and intellectual honesty to own the results of your own action or inaction - to do otherwise is pure selfishness and cowardice.
'Gimp
Post by: LevelWing on May 04, 2016, 08:30:25 AM
Ben is all wet and his argument fails on all attempts.I am under no obligation to vote for the Republican nominee nor is Trump entitled to my vote strictly by being the nominee. He still has to earn it. I reject the notion that not voting for Trump is the same as voting for Hillary, that's just not how it works.
This isn't a classroom debate session, this is the real fucking world, and all that matter is results, who wins - and withholding a vote, or wasting it on a 3rd party or write in IS the same, by result, as voting for the winner if you had the possibility of voting for the person who won the nomination in the party you belong to or most closely identify with instead.
Shapiro is an admitted hardcore #neverTrump guy, that is his prerogative, but you don't get to fuck everybody else over and then blame it on them - if you are going to 'stand on principle' for the 'future of conservatism in America', and I know there will be people who do so, you damn well better have the balls, maturity and intellectual honesty to own the results of your own action or inaction - to do otherwise is pure selfishness and cowardice.
'Gimp
I think we all (or mostly) agree that Trump is not a conservative. For me, I take it one step further and say that I'm not convinced he's a Republican. He's changed his positions so many times over the years and even throughout the campaign. I do think he'd be better than Hillary, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to my vote. I'm on the fence of the #NeverTrump campaign. Where I grow the most concerned is over the SCOTUS picks. Even then, I'm not convinced Trump would pick conservative justices. Even President Bush screwed up with picking Roberts. The SCOTUS picks are what has me in the fence of the #NeverTrump campaign. I'm waiting and watching to see what Trump does to win over people like me.
Post by: nddons on May 04, 2016, 08:31:05 AM
Ben is all wet and his argument fails on all attempts.Why? Trump apparently doesn't need or want my vote, so I don't think he really cares one way or the other. So why do you?
This isn't a classroom debate session, this is the real fucking world, and all that matter is results, who wins - and withholding a vote, or wasting it on a 3rd party or write in IS the same, by result, as voting for the winner if you had the possibility of voting for the person who won the nomination in the party you belong to or most closely identify with instead.
Shapiro is an admitted hardcore #neverTrump guy, that is his prerogative, but you don't get to fuck everybody else over and then blame it on them - if you are going to 'stand on principle' for the 'future of conservatism in America', and I know there will be people who do so, you damn well better have the balls, maturity and intellectual honesty to own the results of your own action or inaction - to do otherwise is pure selfishness and cowardice.
'Gimp
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/4/donald-trump-i-dont-think-its-imperative-entire-pa/
Post by: Number7 on May 04, 2016, 08:31:55 AM
Well, it is what it is... Can't say I can remember a election with two more unpalatable choices. Guess we will spend the next few months debating which candidate is the worst. Sad!
Gary
I said almost the exact same thing to a friend this morning.
When was there an election when the choice was to choose the candidate you hate less???
Post by: acrogimp on May 04, 2016, 08:37:36 AM
I am under no obligation to vote for the Republican nominee nor is Trump entitled to my vote strictly by being the nominee. He still has to earn it. I reject the notion that not voting for Trump is the same as voting for Hillary, that's just not how it works.I am in no way suggesting you owe him a vote, I am only saying that not voting for him is the same, by result, as voting for Hillary. I have zero problem with anyone saying and following through on not voting for the guy on principle. But principles mean something ONLY if you accept responsibility for the consequences - to do or not do something, want to be patted on the back for 'standing on principle', but to then reject any and all consequences is juvenile - it's what Obama does every time he blames the Republicans or someone else for his failures.
I think we all (or mostly) agree that Trump is not a conservative. For me, I take it one step further and say that I'm not convinced he's a Republican. He's changed his positions so many times over the years and even throughout the campaign. I do think he'd be better than Hillary, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to my vote. I'm on the fence of the #NeverTrump campaign. Where I grow the most concerned is over the SCOTUS picks. Even then, I'm not convinced Trump would pick conservative justices. Even President Bush screwed up with picking Roberts. The SCOTUS picks are what has me in the fence of the #NeverTrump campaign. I'm waiting and watching to see what Trump does to win over people like me.
Take a stand, but have the courage to accept responsibility for the results is all I am saying - I spent a lot of time thinking about this because I was not confident Trump would pull it off (and he is still not the official nominee) - when I said I would let it all burn if the establishment 'installed' someone else over the will of the people I meant it, and that included acknowledging the potentially disastrous impact of a Hillary win to include changing the fundamental makeup of SCOTUS and continuing or worsening the currently pathetic domestic and foreign policies we and the rest of the world are currently suffering under.
Maybe it is not realistic to expect that others take the same measure of responsibility for their actions - I find that more and more everywhere else, why not here I guess.
'Gimp
Post by: Lucifer on May 04, 2016, 08:41:05 AM
Shapiro is an admitted hardcore #neverTrump guy, that is his prerogative, but you don't get to fuck everybody else over and then blame it on them - if you are going to 'stand on principle' for the 'future of conservatism in America', and I know there will be people who do so, you damn well better have the balls, maturity and intellectual honesty to own the results of your own action or inaction - to do otherwise is pure selfishness and cowardice.
'Gimp
This is the "George Will Party" and their prerogative in a nutshell.
Post by: acrogimp on May 04, 2016, 08:44:16 AM
Why? Trump apparently doesn't need or want my vote, so I don't think he really cares one way or the other. So why do you?Come on Stan, that's a super stretch, he is clearly talking about the folks who actively and nastily opposed him.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/4/donald-trump-i-dont-think-its-imperative-entire-pa/
Were you a secret donor to the SuperPAC's that spent $100M+ on hundreds of thousands of negative ads?
It's probably too close to the event to have a rational discussion about this - maybe I'll just wait a while for you and others to cool off a little.
'Gimp
Post by: Number7 on May 04, 2016, 08:45:00 AM
This is the "George Will Party" and their prerogative in a nutshell.
I like the wisdom of our founders, especially since it infuriates liberals so much,
(https://scontent.ftpa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13124763_1253886337972030_4199078279417343738_n.jpg?oh=f0fbd1663eed526c3b7e2f82b631f225&oe=57A682CA)
Post by: LevelWing on May 04, 2016, 09:24:04 AM
I am in no way suggesting you owe him a vote, I am only saying that not voting for him is the same, by result, as voting for Hillary.We just disagree on this point.
I have zero problem with anyone saying and following through on not voting for the guy on principle. But principles mean something ONLY if you accept responsibility for the consequences - to do or not do something, want to be patted on the back for 'standing on principle', but to then reject any and all consequences is juvenile - it's what Obama does every time he blames the Republicans or someone else for his failures.The past two elections (some argue longer) we've had candidates that were not conservatives and I voted for them anyway because they were better than the alternative. But how many times do I have to keep doing that? At what point do I say that I've had enough and want a conservative? I think, for me, that may be now. I think that conservatism may have just been set back for a long time by nominating Trump.
Take a stand, but have the courage to accept responsibility for the results is all I am saying - I spent a lot of time thinking about this because I was not confident Trump would pull it off (and he is still not the official nominee) - when I said I would let it all burn if the establishment 'installed' someone else over the will of the people I meant it, and that included acknowledging the potentially disastrous impact of a Hillary win to include changing the fundamental makeup of SCOTUS and continuing or worsening the currently pathetic domestic and foreign policies we and the rest of the world are currently suffering under.
Maybe it is not realistic to expect that others take the same measure of responsibility for their actions - I find that more and more everywhere else, why not here I guess.
'Gimp
Every election it's the same argument: "We have to vote for this guy in order to get the White House! If you don't vote for the candidate, it's your fault if the Democrat gets elected." As if, somehow, those who stood on principle are solely responsible for the outcome. Not that the candidate maybe didn't actually represent my positions and ideals, not that maybe the candidate just wasn't a good candidate, no, it's the fault of those who didn't vote for him. And every election we sacrifice conservatism just to elect someone who is part of the establishment. While we're doing this, the Democrats are continuing to elect candidates who are moving further and further to the left. A declared Socialist is giving Clinton a run for her money in a lot of states.
Another election is here and this time it's different. This time we could see 4 SCOTUS spots open and that concerns me more than a Democrat because a SCOTUS seat lasts longer than 4 years.
Post by: acrogimp on May 04, 2016, 09:27:18 AM
We just disagree on this point.Totally get the second point, have felt the same way for a while.
The past two elections (some argue longer) we've had candidates that were not conservatives and I voted for them anyway because they were better than the alternative. But how many times do I have to keep doing that? At what point do I say that I've had enough and want a conservative? I think, for me, that may be now. I think that conservatism may have just been set back for a long time by nominating Trump.
Every election it's the same argument: "We have to vote for this guy in order to get the White House! If you don't vote for the candidate, it's your fault if the Democrat gets elected." As if, somehow, those who stood on principle are solely responsible for the outcome. Not that the candidate maybe didn't actually represent my positions and ideals, not that maybe the candidate just wasn't a good candidate, no, it's the fault of those who didn't vote for him. And every election we sacrifice conservatism just to elect someone who is part of the establishment. While we're doing this, the Democrats are continuing to elect candidates who are moving further and further to the left. A declared Socialist is giving Clinton a run for her money in a lot of states.
Another election is here and this time it's different. This time we could see 4 SCOTUS spots open and that concerns me more than a Democrat because a SCOTUS seat lasts longer than 4 years.
'Gimp
Post by: Little Joe on May 04, 2016, 09:34:35 AM
Ben is all wet and his argument fails on all attempts.True.
'Gimp
Even his lead in argument of a 50-50 split and you DON'T vote, then nothing changed.
How about this:
Hillary has a two vote lead out of millions.
But Jeff, Stan and BFlynn stayed home and didn't vote.
What would have happened if all three of them voted for Trump. But they didn't vote for anyone, so Hillary wins.
You can rationalize it and contort hypothetical situations all you want, but if you would have voted for the R candidate, but you won't vote for Trump, you ARE voting for Hillary.
Now Jeff might not apply in my scenario because he might have voted for Hillary. But if he stays home rather than voting for Hillary, then he is giving Trump an advantage by withholding his vote for Hillary.
Post by: JeffDG on May 04, 2016, 09:36:19 AM
Every 4 years, the media drums it into conservatives "You need someone who can make deals and compromise to win", then once the nomination is done, they savage that candidate.
Remember what they did with McCain? Brought his campaign back from flat-line to the nomination, then they crushed him.
But here we are again, all the Charlie Browns are going to kick that ball this time for sure!
Post by: JeffDG on May 04, 2016, 09:38:17 AM
Now Jeff might not apply in my scenario because he might have voted for Hillary. But if he stays home rather than voting for Hillary, then he is giving Trump an advantage by withholding his vote for Hillary.You guys are as bad as Trump.
Lucifer says that I will be a Hillary backer, despite many times saying I'll never, not with a gun to my head, vote for Hillary. Kind of like Trump saying over and over Lyin' Ted, while he himself claimed to only tell the truth 2% of the time.
Post by: Lucifer on May 04, 2016, 09:39:24 AM
Now Jeff might not apply in my scenario because he might have voted for Hillary. But if he stays home rather than voting for Hillary, then he is giving Trump an advantage by withholding his vote for Hillary.
Jeff can't vote as he is not a citizen. All he serves to do here is be a flamethrower and a Hillary supporter.
Post by: JeffDG on May 04, 2016, 09:40:47 AM
Jeff can't vote as he is not a citizen. All he serves to do here is be a flamethrower and a Hillary supporter.Not yet, paperwork is in the queue.
And are these the words of a Hillary supporter?
So, will I vote for Hillary? Not with a gun to my head.
Post by: nddons on May 04, 2016, 10:48:57 AM
True.You mean Trump couldn't find those 3 lousy votes somewhere? I thought he was a winner, and his vote was going to be huge.
Even his lead in argument of a 50-50 split and you DON'T vote, then nothing changed.
How about this:
Hillary has a two vote lead out of millions.
But Jeff, Stan and BFlynn stayed home and didn't vote.
What would have happened if all three of them voted for Trump. But they didn't vote for anyone, so Hillary wins.
You can rationalize it and contort hypothetical situations all you want, but if you would have voted for the R candidate, but you won't vote for Trump, you ARE voting for Hillary.
Now Jeff might not apply in my scenario because he might have voted for Hillary. But if he stays home rather than voting for Hillary, then he is giving Trump an advantage by withholding his vote for Hillary.
Huh. Fooled again.
Post by: Dav8or on May 04, 2016, 11:07:02 AM
Post by: asechrest on May 04, 2016, 11:18:00 AM
But beyond that, many of us consider our one vote more than just a simple tool. It is an affirmation of our republic and a deep honor. Using the vote is meaningful. And so, too, can not using it be meaningful.
Post by: pilot_dude on May 04, 2016, 12:46:54 PM
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voiceNever mind the Shakespeare lyrics they sang about in "Limelight"
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill."
Rush (not Limbaugh)
Post by: Little Joe on May 04, 2016, 01:23:59 PM
I know this is Pilot Spin and all, but no matter what anyone says, if you don't, yannow, actually vote for a candidate, you haven't voted for that candidate.Technically that would be true. But the argument is that by withholding a vote that would have gone to Hillary's opponent, you have "effectively" given Hillary the benefit of your non-vote.
I don't know why we have to keep getting into these inane syntactical and grammatical arguments.
Post by: acrogimp on May 04, 2016, 01:26:41 PM
Technically that would be true. But the argument is that by withholding a vote that would have gone to Hillary's opponent, you have "effectively" given Hillary the benefit of your non-vote.Because Maths is hard for some.
I don't know why we have to keep getting into these inane syntactical and grammatical arguments.
'Gimp
Post by: asechrest on May 04, 2016, 01:48:31 PM
Technically that would be true. But the argument is that by withholding a vote that would have gone to Hillary's opponent, you have "effectively" given Hillary the benefit of your non-vote.
I don't know why we have to keep getting into these inane syntactical and grammatical arguments.
No technically about it. It is true. We keep getting into these debates because people keep laying on the BS in an effort to guilt trip people who vote their conscience. I don't care what the argument is. If you wrap it in with anything approaching "you're voting for the other candidate", it's bullshit. Here is a handy logical test:
Q: Did you vote for <insert candidate>?
A: If you answered yes, you voted for <insert candidate>. If you answered no, you did not vote for <insert candidate>.
Post by: nddons on May 04, 2016, 01:51:02 PM
No technically about it. It is true. We keep getting into these debates because people keep laying on the BS in an effort to guilt trip people who vote their conscience. I don't care what the argument is. If you wrap it in with anything approaching "you're voting for the other candidate", it's bullshit. Here is a handy logical test:Shhhh. Trump's going to sue you for saying such things.
Q: Did you vote for <insert candidate>?
A: If you answered yes, you voted for <insert candidate>. If you answered no, you did not vote for <insert candidate>.
Post by: PaulS on May 04, 2016, 01:59:57 PM
Technically that would be true. But the argument is that by withholding a vote that would have gone to Hillary's opponent, you have "effectively" given Hillary the benefit of your non-vote.
I don't know why we have to keep getting into these inane syntactical and grammatical arguments.
That's what he does.
Post by: SoonerAviator on May 09, 2016, 06:48:56 PM
Gary Johnson
Yup, that's likely where my vote is going. Screw those other two batshit crazy candidates. I can't, in good conscience, vote for any Presidential candidate as vile and untrustworthy as Trump or Hillary.
Post by: Little Joe on May 10, 2016, 05:42:24 AM
Yup, that's likely where my vote is going. Screw those other two batshit crazy candidates. I can't, in good conscience, vote for any Presidential candidate as vile and untrustworthy as Trump or Hillary.Do you think Gary Johnson has any chance of winning?
Do you think more Ds or more Rs would vote for Gary Johnson?
Extrapolate from your answers who would benefit the most from your vote for G.J.
(hint: it won't be Gary Johnson or Trump).
Post by: Lucifer on May 10, 2016, 05:49:50 AM
Take it a step further and ask those "Libertarians" what part of the libertarian platform that they can't back to keep them from going all out libertarian, and all you hear is crickets.
Then there is the classic line "If I vote Libertarian I'm just throwing my vote away........."
Post by: JeffDG on May 10, 2016, 05:55:26 AM
When it comes to Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party the most amusing thing are those who proudly proclaim they are "Libertarian" but yet refuse to support the Libertarian Party and its nominee.So, which is it?
Take it a step further and ask those "Libertarians" what part of the libertarian platform that they can't back to keep them from going all out libertarian, and all you hear is crickets.
Then there is the classic line "If I vote Libertarian I'm just throwing my vote away........."
We MUST vote for Trump to stop Hillary?
Or You must vote Libertarian?
I'm far more likely to choose the later than the former.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 10, 2016, 06:05:59 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/10/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-quinnipiac-poll-florida-ohio-pennsylvania/84173448/
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 10, 2016, 06:07:50 AM
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435138/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-conservatives-never-trump-2016
Post by: Number7 on May 10, 2016, 06:14:21 AM
If I wanted to vote for a pro abortion, anti second amendment, big government, liberal, then I could vote for Hilary Clinton. We don't need two anchorless, egomaniacs in the race at once.
Post by: Lucifer on May 10, 2016, 06:22:35 AM
The Trumpsters have taken the position that we must fall in line like progressive democrats and do what wee are told, because we were told, ater all. I choose to vote for the candidate of my choice, not the one forced on me by liberal republicans with no earthly idea what their candidate stands for, or against...
If I wanted to vote for a pro abortion, anti second amendment, big government, liberal, then I could vote for Hilary Clinton. We don't need two anchorless, egomaniacs in the race at once.
I don't think anyone is saying a person "must" do anything. What I have read is reasons (both sides) of the upcoming election and the various ways it could go based upon voting as well as what is at stake for the following 4 years.
The beauty of the voting booth is you can make your choices in total privacy and those choices are only known to you.
Post by: Little Joe on May 10, 2016, 06:28:18 AM
The Trumpsters have taken the position that we must fall in line like progressive democrats and do what wee are told, because we were told, ater all.Nope. That's not it at all.
We are imploring you to vote for Trump because we don't want Hillary.
If you actually prefer Hillary over Trump, then you should either vote for Hillary, or don't vote for President at all.
Post by: LevelWing on May 10, 2016, 06:34:55 AM
Nope. That's not it at all.Many of us are saying that we don't see much of a difference between the two anyway. Especially since Trump has already started reversing positions on some issues, such as the ACA, minimum wage and taxes.
We are imploring you to vote for Trump because we don't want Hillary.
If you actually prefer Hillary over Trump, then you should either vote for Hillary, or don't vote for President at all.I don't prefer Hillary at all, but the tag line of a vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary is old and untrue and been proven several times. It's also being used as a guilt trip to get people to fall in line with Trump.
Post by: Number7 on May 10, 2016, 06:43:28 AM
Post by: bflynn on May 10, 2016, 07:02:23 AM
Post by: Little Joe on May 10, 2016, 07:04:09 AM
The idea that Donald Trump stands for anything much at all is ridiculous. He constantly talks but never nails down a set of concrete beliefs that can be measured against a voter's preference. That might be because he doesn't want to lose support due to unpopular positions, but it seems more likely that he is making it up as he goes.Maybe that is because he says what he thinks rather than some pre-planned, focus group tested, vote getting line of BS.
Post by: pilot_dude on May 10, 2016, 07:27:02 AM
Yup, that's likely where my vote is going. Screw those other two batshit crazy candidates. I can't, in good conscience, vote for any Presidential candidate as vile and untrustworthy as Trump or Hillary.Johnson gets my vote as well. Whether he can win or not is immaterial to me.
Post by: JeffDG on May 10, 2016, 07:35:46 AM
Maybe that is because he says what he thinks rather than some pre-planned, focus group tested, vote getting line of BS.Don't worry, if you don't like what he says, he'll change it in a day or two anyway, then you can just pick and choose which of his contradictory positions you agree with and assume that was the "real" DJT.
Post by: JeffDG on May 10, 2016, 07:37:03 AM
Nope. That's not it at all.Feel free to make a case why Trump would actually be less evil than Hillary. Just repeating "He'd be better than Hillary" does not make it so.
We are imploring you to vote for Trump because we don't want Hillary.
If you actually prefer Hillary over Trump, then you should either vote for Hillary, or don't vote for President at all.
Post by: SoonerAviator on May 10, 2016, 07:59:27 AM
Do you think Gary Johnson has any chance of winning?
Do you think more Ds or more Rs would vote for Gary Johnson?
Extrapolate from your answers who would benefit the most from your vote for G.J.
(hint: it won't be Gary Johnson or Trump).
Maybe, maybe not. I don't vote for "who has the best chance of winning". I vote for who most closely aligns with my political ideals. I don't accept the premise that my vote for GJ is a vote for HC (or against Trump). My vote for GJ is a vote for GJ, that's it. Any other conclusion you draw would be based on false evidence. Now, the practical result of my vote obviously impacts all other candidates, which may or may not benefit those candidates.
Post by: Little Joe on May 10, 2016, 08:00:48 AM
Feel free to make a case why Trump would actually be less evil than Hillary. Just repeating "He'd be better than Hillary" does not make it so.The primary reason I think that Trump would be better than Hillary is that he understands that the best way to help people is to improve the economy rather than raising taxes.
Post by: SoonerAviator on May 10, 2016, 08:03:32 AM
When it comes to Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party the most amusing thing are those who proudly proclaim they are "Libertarian" but yet refuse to support the Libertarian Party and its nominee.
Take it a step further and ask those "Libertarians" what part of the libertarian platform that they can't back to keep them from going all out libertarian, and all you hear is crickets.
Then there is the classic line "If I vote Libertarian I'm just throwing my vote away........."
I'm not a "Big L" Libertarian. I'm registered as an independent, because no single party encompasses everything that I believe. I'll be happy to support anyone (regardless of party affiliation) who I believe will do a good job in their respective elected office. The Libertarians have nutjobs (like all out anarchists) just like R's have religious zealots and D's have ultra liberal snowflakes.
Post by: Little Joe on May 10, 2016, 08:06:23 AM
Maybe, maybe not. I don't vote for "who has the best chance of winning". I vote for who most closely aligns with my political ideals. I don't accept the premise that my vote for GJ is a vote for HC (or against Trump). My vote for GJ is a vote for GJ, that's it. Any other conclusion you draw would be based on false evidence. Now, the practical result of my vote obviously impacts all other candidates, which may or may not benefit those candidates.Yeah, yeah, yeah. You are almost getting the line down, but you missed in the end.
Obviously, your vote for GJ is not a vote for HC.
But if you concede that either Hillary or Trump is going to be the winner, and if you concede that more Rs than Ds would vote for GJ, then you have to come to the conclusion that Rs voting for GJ are conceding the election to HC.
Post by: Lucifer on May 10, 2016, 08:06:30 AM
I'm not a "Big L" Libertarian. I'm registered as an independent, because no single party encompasses everything that I believe. I'll be happy to support anyone (regardless of party affiliation) who I believe will do a good job in their respective elected office. The Libertarians have nutjobs (like all out anarchists) just like R's have religious zealots and D's have ultra liberal snowflakes.
Agreed. You admit that and I respect your opinion on the subject. I was directing my message at those who plaster "Libertarian" all over their post and avatars but then tell you they are not really a libertarian, or better yet, claim to be libertarian but won't support the libertarians. IOW, they are full of shit.
Post by: JeffDG on May 10, 2016, 08:12:56 AM
The primary reason I think that Trump would be better than Hillary is that he understands that the best way to help people is to improve the economy rather than raising taxes.Yet he has already said that taxes are going to go up with him, part of his pivot to the left.
Post by: JeffDG on May 10, 2016, 08:14:49 AM
Agreed. You admit that and I respect your opinion on the subject. I was directing my message at those who plaster "Libertarian" all over their post and avatars but then tell you they are not really a libertarian, or better yet, claim to be libertarian but won't support the libertarians. IOW, they are full of shit.So, he says he's not a "Big L" libertarian, and that's great.
I explained the same to you over and over and over and you couldn't seem to get it through your skull that such a thing existed.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo)
Post by: acrogimp on May 10, 2016, 08:16:04 AM
Maybe, maybe not. I don't vote for "who has the best chance of winning". I vote for who most closely aligns with my political ideals. I don't accept the premise that my vote for GJ is a vote for HC (or against Trump). My vote for GJ is a vote for GJ, that's it. Any other conclusion you draw would be based on false evidence. Now, the practical result of my vote obviously impacts all other candidates, which may or may not benefit those candidates.The result is all that matters.
I have no problem with people voting their conscience, IF they have the intellectual honesty and testicular fortitude to accept their culpability in the result.
To deny responsibility for the result of one's actions is childish at best.
I thought long and hard about what the consequences of my actions would be if I ended up not able to support the nominee, and I was, and remain, ready to accept the consequences of my actions but I expect the same from anyone, especially however when someone is claiming 'high-principle' as their guiding force.
Principle demands acknowledgement and acceptance of the consequence of our actions. Denying that puts the lie to the claim of principle.
'Gimp
Post by: LevelWing on May 10, 2016, 08:17:55 AM
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You are almost getting the line down, but you missed in the end.If you think that Trump needs the votes of conservatives and libertarians and independents, then you concede that he should work to earn them, not demand them.
Obviously, your vote for GJ is not a vote for HC.
But if you concede that either Hillary or Trump is going to be the winner, and if you concede that more Rs than Ds would vote for GJ, then you have to come to the conclusion that Rs voting for GJ are conceding the election to HC.
Post by: Little Joe on May 10, 2016, 08:20:36 AM
If you think that Trump needs the votes of conservatives and libertarians and independents, then you concede that he should work to earn them, not demand them.Yep. 100%. And I do think he will earn those votes. And I think Trump will be better for the Country than Hillary.
Post by: LevelWing on May 10, 2016, 08:21:35 AM
The result is all that matters.Accepting responsibility for your individual vote and being told to accept the blame that it's somehow the fault of the individual who didn't vote for Trump are two separate things. I accept that my vote may or may not have impacts, when compared with how many people vote the same way I do. But it will not be my fault if Trump loses.
I have no problem with people voting their conscience, IF they have the intellectual honesty and testicular fortitude to accept their culpability in the result.
To deny responsibility for the result of one's actions is childish at best.
I thought long and hard about what the consequences of my actions would be if I ended up not able to support the nominee, and I was, and remain, ready to accept the consequences of my actions but I expect the same from anyone, especially however when someone is claiming 'high-principle' as their guiding force.
Principle demands acknowledgement and acceptance of the consequence of our actions. Denying that puts the lie to the claim of principle.
'Gimp
Everyone has said that if Cruz had run a better campaign and if Cruz had done this or that, he may have won. In other words, it's nobody but Cruz's fault that he lost. Now the argument is that if Trump loses it isn't his fault but the fault of those who didn't vote for him, not that he didn't attract enough voters or didn't work hard enough.
Post by: LevelWing on May 10, 2016, 08:24:17 AM
Yep. 100%. And I do think he will earn those votes. And I think Trump will be better for the Country than Hillary.So far that isn't happening. Since he became the presumptive nominee (and we're still talking in terms of days and not weeks or months -- in other words we're still very early into this) he has said he doesn't want the support of some people, talked about raising taxes on the rich and likes the ACA mandate (then reversed that). That's not a good way to attract the Republican, conservative, libertarian or independent voters he needs.
Post by: Little Joe on May 10, 2016, 08:27:47 AM
Yet he has already said that taxes are going to go up with him, part of his pivot to the left.The Dems have us in such a hole that we have to raise revenue. The best way to do that is to grow the economy. Raising taxes on business (the Democrat method) is counter productive. But raising taxes on wage earners is not. I'm good with raising taxes on wage earners as long as they have the ability to earn higher wages.
Hillary will continue to dig the debt hole, and she will continue to hurt business through excessive taxes and regulations. We know that is what she wants to do. But Trump wants to grow the economy. Which is what I want to do.
Post by: JeffDG on May 10, 2016, 08:30:20 AM
The Dems have us in such a hole that we have to raise revenue. The best way to do that is to grow the economy. Raising taxes on business (the Democrat method) is counter productive. But raising taxes on wage earners is not. I'm good with raising taxes on wage earners as long as they have the ability to earn higher wages.Then you disagree with Trump. He's talking now about raising taxes on businesses and high-income earners.
There is really very little difference between them, and now that the pivot has begun, those differences will dwindle rapidly until they're basically two sides of the same coin.
Post by: Little Joe on May 10, 2016, 08:31:18 AM
So far that isn't happening. Since he became the presumptive nominee (and we're still talking in terms of days and not weeks or months -- in other words we're still very early into this) he has said he doesn't want the support of some people, talked about raising taxes on the rich and likes the ACA mandate (then reversed that). That's not a good way to attract the Republican, conservative, libertarian or independent voters he needs.Typical.
He didn't say he didn't want the support of some people. He said he doesn't NEED the support of some people. Obviously, he needs the support of enough people, but they don't all have to be out of the same pool.
It was sort of like when Romney said 47% of the people won't vote for him anyway so he doesn't need to spend money trying to persuade them. If he knows that Jeff isn't going to vote for him, and he thinks he can win without Jeff, then he doesn't need to grovel to get Jeff's vote.
Post by: JeffDG on May 10, 2016, 08:31:34 AM
But Trump wants to grow the economy. Which is what I want to do.Trump's only nod to growing the economy is when he said he'd just print money to pay off the debt. That will grow the economy greatly, but it will devalue the dollar by more, but the economy will be grown.
Post by: Little Joe on May 10, 2016, 08:32:06 AM
Then you disagree with Trump. He's talking now about raising taxes on businesses and high-income earners.If he said he is for raising taxes on businesses, then yes, I disagree with that.
There is really very little difference between them, and now that the pivot has begun, those differences will dwindle rapidly until they're basically two sides of the same coin.
Post by: acrogimp on May 10, 2016, 08:43:08 AM
Accepting responsibility for your individual vote and being told to accept the blame that it's somehow the fault of the individual who didn't vote for Trump are two separate things. I accept that my vote may or may not have impacts, when compared with how many people vote the same way I do. But it will not be my fault if Trump loses.We are actually pretty much in agreement here, at least in large part. Cruz did run a terrible campaign, and that is largely on him, and if Trump runs a bad campaign (possible) that will largely be on him.
Everyone has said that if Cruz had run a better campaign and if Cruz had done this or that, he may have won. In other words, it's nobody but Cruz's fault that he lost. Now the argument is that if Trump loses it isn't his fault but the fault of those who didn't vote for him, not that he didn't attract enough voters or didn't work hard enough.
But, IMO, when we start talking about principle and the general election it gets a bit trickier. Fact is the two main candidates will be Trump and Hillary. Any vote note 'for' Trump, is a defacto vote 'for' Hillary insofar as the end result. Want to take a 'principled' stand and vote for Gary Johnson go ahead, just accept responsibility for your part in the end result, a potential Hillary Presidency, and her picking 4 or 5 SCOTUS justices, her setting the agenda for foreign policy, taxes, social issues, etc.
Sure it can be argued that Trump MIGHT be just as bad, by people who look only to soundbites or who are still butthurt their particular candidate didn't make it when some 'reality TV clown' did, whatever. However it really comes down to a 'might be' vs. a 'will be' - most people on the fence or still angry know what we will get with Hillary, they only have a suspicion about what Trump might mean, but they are letting that fear/uncertainty couple with their human desire to be'right' and calling that standing on principle while simultaneously refusing to accept responsibility for the likely result.
I've followed Trump for almost 3 decades now and I believe his body of work, as a person and a businessman, shows a small 'C' conservative base, with some liberal social beliefs. I don't agree with all of his positions, but I haven't agreed with all positions for anyone, including Reagan himself who I think we all can agree is the gold-standard for conservatism.
I am looking for someone who most closely matches my values and beliefs and philosophy out of the available choices.
I don't have time today to try and more elaborately describe the nature of my belief about Trump, and am not sure it is worth the time to try and capture it since I doubt it would be openly received, at least not so soon after recent events in the primaries, but I do believe he is a far, far better choice than Hillary or Bernie or Gary Johnson or any other would-be spoiler vote.
'Gimp
Post by: nddons on May 10, 2016, 09:00:52 AM
Maybe that is because he says what he thinks rather than some pre-planned, focus group tested, vote getting line of BS.But he speaks in word salad. Saying what's top of mind is no example of brilliance, unless what you say is brilliant and meaningful.
Trump is all "don't raise the minimum wage" and "no tax increases" until he's questioned by a left-leaning reporter (redundant, I know) on those topics, in which case he opens the door to raising both! He's even contradicted his own tax plan on his website!
That's not brilliant, that's naked pandering at best, or a rudderless ship at worst.
Post by: SoonerAviator on May 10, 2016, 09:03:27 AM
Accepting responsibility for your individual vote and being told to accept the blame that it's somehow the fault of the individual who didn't vote for Trump are two separate things. I accept that my vote may or may not have impacts, when compared with how many people vote the same way I do. But it will not be my fault if Trump loses.
Everyone has said that if Cruz had run a better campaign and if Cruz had done this or that, he may have won. In other words, it's nobody but Cruz's fault that he lost. Now the argument is that if Trump loses it isn't his fault but the fault of those who didn't vote for him, not that he didn't attract enough voters or didn't work hard enough.
Agreed. I'd gladly put my vote behind an R-candidate if they had brought someone to the table I could get behind.
Trump has given me nothing of substance to really evaluate. He has no tangible tax plan, and what he has mentioned about it has varied from who is being taxed at what rate. He wants to build a wall . . . great, what then? Trade tariffs ought to have a negative impact on the cost of goods, especially those with no good substitute in the US, but he's indicated he's fine with that. Printing trillions in money to avoid default is insane, and for him to suggest so casually that it would even be an option makes me really question his understanding of the broad economy. I have to imagine that, given his business acumen, he would know that it's not truly a viable solution.
Finally, he lacks the tact and grace with which I typically desire in someone who is the Commander in Chief of the USA. It's more of a minor issue, but still something that's hard for me to even listen to. I would love to see someone just cold cock that pompous NYC windbag right in the mouth, just to see how he'd react. He reminds me of the rich only-child who was never told 'no' or restrained, and those are traits I have a difficult time accepting in a Presidential candidate, or in a fellow American in general.
I will qualify all of that negativity with the fact that I do appreciate his non-PC approach and his willingness to address even the most loaded questions, something the typical politician would avoid like the plague.
Post by: acrogimp on May 10, 2016, 09:21:53 AM
But he speaks in word salad. Saying what's top of mind is no example of brilliance, unless what you say is brilliant and meaningful.Stan the min wage things was totally, deliberately and blatantly take out of context, his very next statement was his preference was to create jobs/bring jobs back with higher wages - he has actually proposed removing the Federal minimum wage and pushing that decision to the states (see Forbes yesterday).
Trump is all "don't raise the minimum wage" and "no tax increases" until he's questioned by a left-leaning reporter (redundant, I know) on those topics, in which case he opens the door to raising both! He's even contradicted his own tax plan on his website!
That's not brilliant, that's naked pandering at best, or a rudderless ship at worst.
For anyone with the patience to actually read the whole thing here is a recent transcript with Chuck Todd, some very clear ideas that have been blatantly misrepresented in both the Liberal and allegedly-Conservative media.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-may-8-2016-n570111
For example, he never said he wanted to raise taxes on the rich, he said he recognized that he has to propose a plan that Congress has to review, and they will then have to negotiate to get to a policy that can be turned into legislation. He only acknowledged that the opposition will come back with their list of desires and that the process will be negotiation - nothing any different than any President and any Congress before him.
He is just being very open about the process, could be because I have chosen to support him but I understand what he is saying, and it is not an abandonment of principle, it is an acknowledgement of how the process is supposed to work.
'Gimp
Post by: Little Joe on May 10, 2016, 10:47:14 AM
Then you disagree with Trump. He's talking now about raising taxes on businesses and high-income earners.I have looked, but I can't find where Trump said he would raise taxes on businesses. Perhaps you can help me.
There is really very little difference between them, and now that the pivot has begun, those differences will dwindle rapidly until they're basically two sides of the same coin.
I did find where he said the wealthy might pay more, but I also found reports that said he was misinterpreted, in that he said he could agree to higher taxes on the wealthy than his tax plan currently promotes, but it would still be less than the are currently paying.
So please help clarify, or prove your statement. Or IF you made it up, or took it on faith that MSNBC and CNBC are honest news stations, then admit that.
Post by: acrogimp on May 10, 2016, 11:06:15 AM
I have looked, but I can't find where Trump said he would raise taxes on businesses. Perhaps you can help me.He of course did not actually say that, it has been sliced, diced and misrepresented along with minimum wage, taxes on the rich, etc.
I did find where he said the wealthy might pay more, but I also found reports that said he was misinterpreted, in that he said he could agree to higher taxes on the wealthy than his tax plan currently promotes, but it would still be less than the are currently paying.
So please help clarify, or prove your statement. Or IF you made it up, or took it on faith that MSNBC and CNBC are honest news stations, then admit that.
He just yesterday proposed removal of the Federal Minimum Wage and letting States establish such, if/as they feel necessary - his focus is on creating an environment of regulation and taxation that would allow for the creation or return of jobs paying more than minimum wage - the fact that he does not see how folks can live on $7.25 an hour is same as me, I can't see it either since that was in my rearview mirror almost 30 years ago.
Don't expect JihadJeff to come back with an actual, complete and in context quote, he has misrepresentations to protect after-all.
'Gimp
Post by: JeffDG on May 10, 2016, 11:13:54 AM
I have looked, but I can't find where Trump said he would raise taxes on businesses. Perhaps you can help me.Remember, that most businesses are Sub-S corps or LLCs, and pay taxes at the higher individual rates. Take into account also that these small businesses generate most job creation, and increasing rates on these folks is a clear increase in taxes on businesses, and a disincentive to job creation.
I did find where he said the wealthy might pay more, but I also found reports that said he was misinterpreted, in that he said he could agree to higher taxes on the wealthy than his tax plan currently promotes, but it would still be less than the are currently paying.
So please help clarify, or prove your statement. Or IF you made it up, or took it on faith that MSNBC and CNBC are honest news stations, then admit that.
Also, note his comments that "everything is negotiable", and he has stated many times that he thinks higher income people (like the aforementioned small business owners) should be paying more.
Post by: JeffDG on May 10, 2016, 11:14:29 AM
Don't expect JihadJeff to come back with an actual, complete and in context quote, he has misrepresentations to protect after-all.I'm sorry you feel that way, and that you had to create a safe-space so you didn't have to read my comments lest you realize you are supporting a democrat in all but name for the election.
Post by: acrogimp on May 10, 2016, 11:31:44 AM
Quote
CHUCK TODD:
Let me move on. Let me move on some issue things. There's a few things that some people think are contradictions, so I want to see if I can pin you down here. The issue of taxes. Your tax plan is one where the biggest beneficiaries are the 0.1 percent when it comes to raw dollars that will be saved among taxes.
But then in an interview earlier this week, you seemed to say, "You know what, my tax plan, it's not set in stone. And maybe I'll raise taxes. Maybe I'll actually raise taxes on the rich." So I guess, which is it? Are you willing to raise taxes on 0.1 percent or not--
DONALD TRUMP:
It's definitely-- no, no, no. Let me explain how the world works, okay? I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, and income than I do. But I'll explain how it all works. I come up with the biggest tax cut by far of any candidate. Anybody. And I put it in. But that doesn't mean that's what we're going to get. We have to negotiate.
The thing I'm going to do is make sure the middle class gets good tax breaks. Because they have been absolutely shunned. The other thing, I'm going to fight very hard for business. For the wealthy, I think, frankly, it's going to go up. And you know what, it really should go up. Because the wealthy--
CHUCK TODD:
The wealthy need to pay more taxes? What do you define as wealthy, by the way--
DONALD TRUMP:
No. No, let me explain-- somebody like me. Let me explain something--somebody like me--let me explain something. I'm putting in a plan, Chuck. I have to negotiate now with senators and congressmen and lots of-- the fact that I put in a plan, it really is a floor. That's what it is. Whether we like it or not.
So I put in my plan. It's quite simple to see. It's a simplification. We lower the number of brackets. We lower the taxes on the middle class, on business. And we lower the taxes on everybody, very substantially. But I have no illusions. I don't think that's going to be the final plan. Because they are going to come to me, including the Democrats and everybody else, they're going to come to me. They're going to want to negotiate. But that's a floor. That's where we're starting.
CHUCK TODD:
So is that--
DONALD TRUMP:
Now, when it comes time to negotiate, I feel less concerned with the rich than I do with the middle class.
CHUCK TODD:
So it sounds like-- should we take that--
DONALD TRUMP:
And I feel very concerned at that.
CHUCK TODD:
--should we assume that most of your plans, then, we shouldn't take you at your word, as sort of that they're floors? What you just described? That, "You know what, it's my opening statement, but everything is negotiable--"
DONALD TRUMP:
It's not a word. Excuse me. Excuse me. It's called life, Chuck. It's not my word, of course. I put in a proposal. You know what they are? They're really proposals. People can say it's a tax plan. It's really a tax proposal. Because after I put it in, and I think you know the Senate and Congress--
CHUCK TODD:
Sure. Yeah.
DONALD TRUMP:
--you know as much as anybody, they start working with you, and they start fighting. And you know, let's see what happens. But I put in a proposal. Under my proposal, it's the biggest tax cut by far, of any candidate by far. But I'm not under the illusion that that's going to pass. They're going to come to me. They're going to want to raise it for the rich. Frankly, they're going to want to raise it for the rich more than anybody else.
But the middle class has to be protected. The rich is probably going to end up paying more. And business might have to pay a little bit more. But we're giving a massive business tax cut. Remember this, we're the highest taxed nation in the world. But this is a tax-- Chuck, this is a tax proposal--
CHUCK TODD:
Wait a minute. Let me stop you there. You just said, "Businesses might pay a little bit more." You just said, "Business might pay a little bit more, but we're going to get 'em a massive tax cut." You just said it within ten words.
DONALD TRUMP:
No, no. I didn't say it. Excuse me. I said they might have to pay a little bit more than my proposal, Chuck. I said they might have--
CHUCK TODD:
Oh, your proposal. Okay. I just wanted to get that clear.
DONALD TRUMP:
--yeah, than my proposal.
CHUCK TODD:
Fair enough.
DONALD TRUMP:
I'm not talking about more than they're paying now.
CHUCK TODD:
Got you.
DONALD TRUMP:
We're the highest taxed nation in the world. Our businesses pay more taxes than any businesses in the world. That's why companies are leaving. So they may have to pay a little bit more than my proposal, is what I mean. I assume you knew that. I assume you know that.
Taking the above as an example, Trump recognizes there will be give and take, that is not a my-way-or-the-highway approach - and honestly who would you rather have in negotations like that that ultimately require agreement between not just different political parties but different branches of government? Ted Cruz managed to get exactly 1 of over 44 proposed bills passed, and that one was uncontroversial - he couldn't get his own team to support most of his proposals, let alone the entire Senate.
Some may suggest that Trump's recognition of the need for negotiation to mean he will just roll over but there is nothing in his history of negotiations that suggest that to be the case.
He clearly states the need for tax relief, clearly states middle-class need to be protected, and acknowledges that while some may end up paying more than his original proposal his intent is that it be less than today.
How that becomes 'rudderless', 'unprincipled' or 'everything is open' is beyond me.
'Gimp
Post by: nddons on May 10, 2016, 11:36:52 AM
Stan the min wage things was totally, deliberately and blatantly take out of context, his very next statement was his preference was to create jobs/bring jobs back with higher wages - he has actually proposed removing the Federal minimum wage and pushing that decision to the states (see Forbes yesterday).Then as the presumptive GOP nominee for POTUS, he'd better understand pretty damned quickly that words, including individual words, matter. (And please, for all that is holy, don't tell me that he's not a politician so he doesn't get the "politically correct" thing. Words matter in business too.)
For anyone with the patience to actually read the whole thing here is a recent transcript with Chuck Todd, some very clear ideas that have been blatantly misrepresented in both the Liberal and allegedly-Conservative media.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-may-8-2016-n570111
For example, he never said he wanted to raise taxes on the rich, he said he recognized that he has to propose a plan that Congress has to review, and they will then have to negotiate to get to a policy that can be turned into legislation. He only acknowledged that the opposition will come back with their list of desires and that the process will be negotiation - nothing any different than any President and any Congress before him.
He is just being very open about the process, could be because I have chosen to support him but I understand what he is saying, and it is not an abandonment of principle, it is an acknowledgement of how the process is supposed to work.
'Gimp
Take Romney's 47% comment. I think you and I both know what he meant, but if you remember the vitriol and hatred and opportunism that those few little words caused, including over on POA, it effectively finished Romney.
Post by: acrogimp on May 10, 2016, 11:48:48 AM
Then as the presumptive GOP nominee for POTUS, he'd better understand pretty damned quickly that words, including individual words, matter. (And please, for all that is holy, don't tell me that he's not a politician so he doesn't get the "politically correct" thing. Words matter in business too.)Valid criticism Stan.
Take Romney's 47% comment. I think you and I both know what he meant, but if you remember the vitriol and hatred and opportunism that those few little words caused, including over on POA, it effectively finished Romney.
I am giving Trump the same benefit of the doubt that I gave Romney (and as you did) because I easily see what he is saying - helps that I have a long time of following the guy so yes, he has a job ahead to make sure that he can get the message down into more bite-sized pieces that require less give and take such as the example I gave with Chuck Todd.
Taken in whole I think he maps out an approach most big "C" conservatives can agree with, but if all they or the electorate get is 'NBC reports that Trump says rich should pay more' (something he never actually said) it turns off the big "C" conservatives (if they accept it as misreported) but will, potentially, attract some independent middle and lower income voters.
It clearly puts the onus on Trump to improve his performance with the mainstream media to ensure a clear and accurate message is getting delivered, but it also puts some responsibility I think on folks like yourself who hold a poor opinion of Trump to make sure that that opinion is fully informed by what he actually says, fully and in context, rather than to accept edited soundbites that appear to reinforce that opinion (as they are meant to do).
Again, Trump has a lot of work to do with some conservatives, and I believe he will make those efforts where he sees a reasonable potential for ROI.
'Gimp
Post by: nddons on May 10, 2016, 12:54:18 PM
Valid criticism Stan.Fair enough. I anxiously await being "wowed" by Trump.
I am giving Trump the same benefit of the doubt that I gave Romney (and as you did) because I easily see what he is saying - helps that I have a long time of following the guy so yes, he has a job ahead to make sure that he can get the message down into more bite-sized pieces that require less give and take such as the example I gave with Chuck Todd.
Taken in whole I think he maps out an approach most big "C" conservatives can agree with, but if all they or the electorate get is 'NBC reports that Trump says rich should pay more' (something he never actually said) it turns off the big "C" conservatives (if they accept it as misreported) but will, potentially, attract some independent middle and lower income voters.
It clearly puts the onus on Trump to improve his performance with the mainstream media to ensure a clear and accurate message is getting delivered, but it also puts some responsibility I think on folks like yourself who hold a poor opinion of Trump to make sure that that opinion is fully informed by what he actually says, fully and in context, rather than to accept edited soundbites that appear to reinforce that opinion (as they are meant to do).
Again, Trump has a lot of work to do with some conservatives, and I believe he will make those efforts where he sees a reasonable potential for ROI.
'Gimp
But was it just me, or did you reflexively move your right hand to your back pocket to make sure your wallet was still there after reading the Chuck Todd interview?
Post by: JeffDG on May 10, 2016, 01:03:16 PM
https://www.facebook.com/BradThorOfficial/posts/10153693576823990 (https://www.facebook.com/BradThorOfficial/posts/10153693576823990)
Quote
As an American, my greatest allegiance is to liberty. As long as there is liberty, no task is insurmountable, no challenge too overwhelming. As long as there is liberty, anything is possible.
The true north of my compass has been, and always will be, liberty. I owe it to those who have come before me and those who will come after. I will act to safeguard liberty no matter what personal price I may be forced to bear.
Liberty is my litmus test. I weigh all actions of my government and those who seek office, against it. The ledger of freedom is incorruptible; its pages open for anyone to examine, and most importantly - to learn from.
...
But in the opinion of some of our fellow Americans, we have not been quick enough. Rather than continue to fight, a plurality of voters in the Republican primary has decided to drop an atom bomb on Washington, D.C. That atom bomb is Donald Trump.
And so I come to my explanation. When I apply my litmus test of liberty to Donald Trump, he fails - completely.
In fact, he has not only failed to ever stand for liberty, he has repeatedly worked to undermine it. From supporting an assault weapons ban, the seizure of private property via eminent domain, the restructuring of libel laws, and socialized medicine (just to name a few) - throughout his entire adult life, Donald Trump has repeatedly championed the power of the state.
...
Our Founders realized that the normal course of history is despotism – the control of the many by the few. That is why the Founding documents sought to constrain government. They also counted on Americans to choose wisely those whom we sought to install in office. Too often we have failed in selecting the best among us.
Donald Trump is not the best among us, neither is Hillary Clinton. They are both incredibly flawed human beings whom we should be equally ashamed of.
Neither would advance the cause of freedom. Both would take us – not to that shining city on a hill of which President Regan spoke - but into the murky valley beneath. Never have I seen America faced with having two such poor choices for president.
With the lessons of history as my guide, I see in Donald Trump the character flaws that are the hallmarks of despotism. In Hillary Clinton, I also see multiple character flaws, but I see them as a belonging not to a potential despot, but rather to a conniving, self-serving, progressive politician who believes in lining her own pockets and enlarging/increasing the state and its power.
The two are reprehensible – but completely different. One threatens to further enlarge the state, the other, potentially (a la Napoleon), to become it.
Growing up, a wonderful nun repeatedly told me that kindness could only be expected from the strong. When Donald Trump mocked the disability of New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski – he showed himself to be not only weak, but also lacking in compassion.
Trump’s position that he is a Christian, but has never asked for forgiveness – coupled with his incessant bragging – not only further shows that he is weak, but that he also lacks humility.
...
My greatest concern about Donald Trump, though, isn’t a trait he lacks, but a dangerous one he poses – in spades. Authoritarianism.
Confident people do not bully and demean others. That is the realm of the weak and insecure. Confident people also do not threaten others, especially not their fellow citizens.
Donald Trump has told us to just wait and see what he does to Jeff Bezos once he gets into the White House. He has told us the American military will do whatever he tells them to do no matter what their reservations. He has promised to prevent American companies from moving outside the United States, regardless of what they believe is best for their businesses.
In other words, Donald Trump has clearly told all of us that he will use the power of the presidency to force people to bend to his will. This is not liberty.
...
Let me be clear that I don’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton. I also don’t want to vote for Donald Trump. My preference is to write-in or vote third party. I think they are both terrible for our future.
...
As a Constitutional conservative, I take solace in, and guidance from the words of Alexander Hamilton, who in the election of 1800 said, “If we must have an enemy at the head of government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible.”
Post by: nddons on May 10, 2016, 01:41:56 PM
Much better written that I could do. Read the whole thing, but I'll excerpt a few key points.For some reason the entire article won't load on my phone, but what you quoted is precisely how I feel, and why I have been regularly asking Trump supporters if Trump has ever, in this entire campaign, used the words "freedom" or "liberty" in any speech or debate. I've never heard it, and I welcomed being proved wrong.
https://www.facebook.com/BradThorOfficial/posts/10153693576823990 (https://www.facebook.com/BradThorOfficial/posts/10153693576823990)
No one has been able to prove me wrong.
Post by: LevelWing on May 10, 2016, 06:50:46 PM
But, IMO, when we start talking about principle and the general election it gets a bit trickier. Fact is the two main candidates will be Trump and Hillary. Any vote note 'for' Trump, is a defacto vote 'for' Hillary insofar as the end result. Want to take a 'principled' stand and vote for Gary Johnson go ahead, just accept responsibility for your part in the end result, a potential Hillary Presidency, and her picking 4 or 5 SCOTUS justices, her setting the agenda for foreign policy, taxes, social issues, etc.Yet again, I think we just disagree on this.
Sure it can be argued that Trump MIGHT be just as bad, by people who look only to soundbites or who are still butthurt their particular candidate didn't make it when some 'reality TV clown' did, whatever. However it really comes down to a 'might be' vs. a 'will be' - most people on the fence or still angry know what we will get with Hillary, they only have a suspicion about what Trump might mean, but they are letting that fear/uncertainty couple with their human desire to be'right' and calling that standing on principle while simultaneously refusing to accept responsibility for the likely result.What concerns me the most is that we, as a nation, are willing to accept something this pathetic. A "might be vs. a will be" is a terrible choice to have to make. Many will hold their noses and vote for Trump, but that's not good enough for me, at least not anymore. I did it before and I'm just not sure that I can do it again.
I am looking for someone who most closely matches my values and beliefs and philosophy out of the available choices.For many, that is just not Donald Trump. Yet they are still being bullied and guilt tripped into voting for him and Trump supporters are attempting to hang the election around their necks and blame it on them if they don't vote for him.
I don't have time today to try and more elaborately describe the nature of my belief about Trump, and am not sure it is worth the time to try and capture it since I doubt it would be openly received, at least not so soon after recent events in the primaries, but I do believe he is a far, far better choice than Hillary or Bernie or Gary Johnson or any other would-be spoiler vote.I'm always open to hearing other points of view. I agree that Trump would be better than Hillary or Bernie Sanders, but I'm just not sure by how much.
Post by: LevelWing on May 10, 2016, 06:54:27 PM
Much better written that I could do. Read the whole thing, but I'll excerpt a few key points.Excellent and worth the read. I agree with what he said. He represents what many conservative are currently feeling. We are being forced to make a decision between two candidates, one of which most certainly doesn't care about liberty and freedom and one who seemingly doesn't care yet both of which used the freedoms afforded to all of us to get to where they are today.
https://www.facebook.com/BradThorOfficial/posts/10153693576823990 (https://www.facebook.com/BradThorOfficial/posts/10153693576823990)
Post by: bflynn on May 11, 2016, 07:05:13 PM
How that becomes 'rudderless', 'unprincipled' or 'everything is open' is beyond me.
With quotes like this one:
Quote
They're going to want to negotiate. But that's a floor. That's where we're starting.
Add in the fact that Donald has spent his entire business career compromising and the fact that he has never stated what he will not compromise on and you get the source of the idea that he is rudderless, unprincipled and everything is open.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 12, 2016, 04:24:44 AM
Add in the fact that Donald has spent his entire business career compromising and the fact that he has never stated what he will not compromise on and you get the source of the idea that he is rudderless, unprincipled and everything is open.
working deals is not the same thing as rudderless nor unprincipled.
now back to the nightmare of the donald vs the doormat...
Post by: nddons on May 12, 2016, 04:43:47 AM
working deals is not the same thing as rudderless nor unprincipled.Can a "deal" be made on the First Amendment? How about the Second Amendment? Because just during this campaign, we learned that Trump doesn't hold either of those as real rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Just last week he said that Rafael Cruz shouldn't be "allowed" to speak ill of Trump because he's a preacher.
now back to the nightmare of the donald vs the doormat...
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5409/trump-says-cruzs-father-shouldnt-be-allowed-say-hank-berrien
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 12, 2016, 05:20:37 AM
Can a "deal" be made on the First Amendment? How about the Second Amendment? Because just during this campaign, we learned that Trump doesn't hold either of those as real rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Just last week he said that Rafael Cruz shouldn't be "allowed" to speak ill of Trump because he's a preacher.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5409/trump-says-cruzs-father-shouldnt-be-allowed-say-hank-berrien
non sequitur
The erroneous statement I was addressing was equating making deals with necessarily being rudderless or unprincipled.
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 05:27:21 AM
non sequiturMaking statements of "everything is up for negotiation" is the epitome of rudderless and unprincipled.
The erroneous statement I was addressing was equating making deals with necessarily being rudderless or unprincipled.
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 05:31:46 AM
Making statements of "everything is up for negotiation" is the epitome of rudderless and unprincipled.Ridiculous.
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.
When I buy a car, I negotiate the price. That doesn't mean I don't want, or won't buy the car.
When choosing a place to go to dinner, I negotiate with my wife. I state a few places I want to go and then we compromise on where she wants to go. That doesn't mean I don't care about the places I wanted, but I get a better result by compromising.
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 05:53:35 AM
Ridiculous.So let me take the overly simplistic analogy to another place.
When I buy a car, I negotiate the price. That doesn't mean I don't want, or won't buy the car.
When choosing a place to go to dinner, I negotiate with my wife. I state a few places I want to go and then we compromise on where she wants to go. That doesn't mean I don't care about the places I wanted, but I get a better result by compromising.
Let's say you're allergic to shellfish. Deathly allergic, in that if you get within 50 yards of a lobster you're dead meat.
Your wife decides that Red Lobster is the place to go. Do you compromise?
Well, stuff like the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment are my allergens. I don't want them on the table for negotiation, at all. So, if "everything is negotiable", then a candidate is unprincipled (ie. they have nothing they will not compromise) and rudderless.
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 06:07:17 AM
So let me take the overly simplistic analogy to another place.I guess that if you live only in your nightmares, such an analogy is appropriate.
Let's say you're allergic to shellfish. Deathly allergic, in that if you get within 50 yards of a lobster you're dead meat.
Your wife decides that Red Lobster is the place to go. Do you compromise?
Well, stuff like the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment are my allergens. I don't want them on the table for negotiation, at all. So, if "everything is negotiable", then a candidate is unprincipled (ie. they have nothing they will not compromise) and rudderless.
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2016, 06:15:47 AM
I guess that if you live only in your nightmares, such an analogy is appropriate.
He's using yet another inane diatribe and trying to make it an argument. He's so worried about the constitution yet he's OK with letting his candidate Hillary win where she will have the opportunity to nominate 4, possibly 5 SC Justices that would have the potential to re interpret those amendments.
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 06:21:44 AM
He's using yet another inane diatribe and trying to make it an argument. He's so worried about the constitution yet he's OK with letting his candidate Hillary win where she will have the opportunity to nominate 4, possibly 5 SC Justices that would have the potential to re interpret those amendments.Pipe down, adults are talking here.
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 06:22:48 AM
I guess that if you live only in your nightmares, such an analogy is appropriate.So, you think that everything on the table, including the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th (so far) amendments is a good thing?
Like I said, you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 06:25:44 AM
H: I want to go north.
W: I want to go west.
Compromise: Heading 270
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 06:27:44 AM
Pipe down, adults are talking here.Thanks for that. (I think). :)
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 06:29:44 AM
So, you think that everything on the table, including the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th (so far) amendments is a good thing?No, I don't think "everything" is on the table.
Like I said, you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.
Do you believe that "Nothing" is on the table?
Or, like me, do you thing that there has to be "some" give and take?
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 06:30:44 AM
No, I don't think "everything" is on the table.Trump has clearly said everything is negotiable. Everything is on the table: hence the unprincipled and rudderless tag.
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 06:33:10 AM
Or, like me, do you thing that there has to be "some" give and take?I believe that there needs to be some give and take. You negotiate details, you remain solid on your core principles.
But if you don't have core values and principles that you are not willing to compromise, you'll get slaughtered in a negotiation. If you're not willing to walk away from the table, you will not win.
Schumer, Pelosi, et. al. have principles that they will bring to the table that they will not compromise. Do I agree with those principles? No, I believe them to be flawed and dangerous. But they will absolutely not compromise them. If you go into a negotiation with them with nothing of your own that you won't trade away, they win. Big.
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 06:34:35 AM
Trump has clearly said everything is negotiable. Everything is on the table: hence the unprincipled and rudderless tag.Still, the fact that something is "negotiable" doesn't mean everything is disposable.
Again with car, the dealer's price might be negotiable, but I'm not going to get it for free.
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 06:35:51 AM
Still, the fact that something is "negotiable" doesn't mean everything is disposable.You: But I can only spend $10,000 on the car.
Again with car, the dealer's price might be negotiable, but I'm not going to get it for free.
Dealer: OK, but I'll have to sell it to you without a transmission
You: Good compromise.
You see, it's negotiable. You didn't have a core that you needed a complete working car, just that you had to get a car for $10k or less.
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 06:36:23 AM
I believe that there needs to be some give and take. You negotiate details, you remain solid on your core principles.You started out making sense, but then just contradicted yourself in a major way.
But if you don't have core values and principles that you are not willing to compromise, you'll get slaughtered in a negotiation. If you're not willing to walk away from the table, you will not win.
Schumer, Pelosi, et. al. have principles that they will bring to the table that they will not compromise. Do I agree with those principles? No, I believe them to be flawed and dangerous. But they will absolutely not compromise them. If you go into a negotiation with them with nothing of your own that you won't trade away, they win. Big.
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 06:38:10 AM
You: But I can only spend $10,000 on the car.There is a word for what you just did. I'm not sure what that word is, but it sure isn't complimentary.
Dealer: OK, but I'll have to sell it to you without a transmission
You: Good compromise.
You see, it's negotiable. You didn't have a core that you needed a complete working car, just that you had to get a car for $10k or less.
Your example is the kind of deal that Obama makes, and that Hillary would make, and with which Trump disagrees.
Post by: LevelWing on May 12, 2016, 06:38:57 AM
No, I don't think "everything" is on the table.Of course there is give and take on some issues. But there shouldn't be on fundamental things such as the first or second amendments. As I said in another post, if you want to negotiate on the budget or what country gets how much aid, sure, but there is no negotiation on the first or second amendments.
Do you believe that "Nothing" is on the table?
Or, like me, do you thing that there has to be "some" give and take?
The Constitution is not a rights granting document, it's a government limiting document.
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 06:44:08 AM
Of course there is give and take on some issues. But there shouldn't be on fundamental things such as the first or second amendments. As I said in another post, if you want to negotiate on the budget or what country gets how much aid, sure, but there is no negotiation on the first or second amendments.I agree, but what's your point?
The Constitution is not a rights granting document, it's a government limiting document.
Are you saying that Trump is more likely to negotiate away the Constitution than Hillary, given that he will have a Republican Congress to watch over him?
Post by: LevelWing on May 12, 2016, 06:47:51 AM
I agree, but what's your point?What I'd like to see is why Trump should have my vote using an argument other than "so Hillary doesn't win". Everything seems to revert back to that instead of why or how Trump should earn my vote.
Are you saying that Trump is more likely to negotiate away the Constitution than Hillary, given that he will have a Republican Congress to watch over him?
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2016, 06:53:39 AM
What I'd like to see is why Trump should have my vote using an argument other than "so Hillary doesn't win". Everything seems to revert back to that instead of why or how Trump should earn my vote.
You are using the "Is the glass half full, or half empty?" argument.
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 06:58:27 AM
What I'd like to see is why Trump should have my vote using an argument other than "so Hillary doesn't win". Everything seems to revert back to that instead of why or how Trump should earn my vote.The argument "so HIllaray doesn't win" is much more specific than you make out. I use that argument because pointing out all the things I don't like about Hillary would be, as I said before "redundant and preaching to the choir".
She is certain to appoint liberal supreme court justices.
She is almost as certain to sell influence to the highest bidder.
She is under FBI investigation for her handling of sensitive information.
Her above referenced handling of information was because she is more concerned with keeping her corruptness from the American people than she is in keeping national security information from our enemies.
I could go on and on and on, but I think most people on this board have a good idea of why so many of us desperately don't want Hillary to win.
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2016, 07:16:39 AM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/pew-poll-shows-trump-supporters-true-conservatives-gop/
Post by: LevelWing on May 12, 2016, 07:25:37 AM
The argument "so HIllaray doesn't win" is much more specific than you make out. I use that argument because pointing out all the things I don't like about Hillary would be, as I said before "redundant and preaching to the choir".It's not sufficient because Trump has given no indication that his policies would be a lot different. He's already made flops on business and trade, minimum wage, taxes, etc.
She is certain to appoint liberal supreme court justices.
She is almost as certain to sell influence to the highest bidder.
She is under FBI investigation for her handling of sensitive information.
Her above referenced handling of information was because she is more concerned with keeping her corruptness from the American people than she is in keeping national security information from our enemies.
I could go on and on and on, but I think most people on this board have a good idea of why so many of us desperately don't want Hillary to win.
I think we all agree that Trump would be better than Hillary, even if not by much. But the sad part is we have to throw in the qualifier of "even if not by much". Was it you who said that even if it was only by 10% it was still better than Hillary?
Post by: Number7 on May 12, 2016, 07:45:07 AM
As long as he keeps acting like a post-menopausal debutante there is nothing about him to be believed, trusted, or depended upon.
Post by: nddons on May 12, 2016, 08:38:41 AM
I wish Donald Trump would decide what he stands for and what he stands against, then say so and act like it.That's really my point.
As long as he keeps acting like a post-menopausal debutante there is nothing about him to be believed, trusted, or depended upon.
I'm also stunned that Trump supporters will do everything NOT to hold Trump accountable for what he says or does or doesn't do, including the release of tax returns. If there was an overwhelming pressure by Trump fans, he would have to do it. Instead, Trump fans are no different than Hillary sycophants who willfully ignore her lies, obfuscation, corruption, and criminal exposure of US secrets in order to secure a democrat win in November.
Post by: LevelWing on May 12, 2016, 10:15:23 AM
I wish Donald Trump would decide what he stands for and what he stands against, then say so and act like it.Exactly. This isn't a lot to ask for of the presumptive nominee.
As long as he keeps acting like a post-menopausal debutante there is nothing about him to be believed, trusted, or depended upon.
Post by: Dav8or on May 12, 2016, 05:59:39 PM
Here is a recent actual conversation, start to end...
I can't believe you posted this transcript and perhaps, I don't really know, make us feel better about voting for Trump.
Quote
CHUCK TODD:
Let me move on. Let me move on some issue things. There's a few things that some people think are contradictions, so I want to see if I can pin you down here. The issue of taxes. Your tax plan is one where the biggest beneficiaries are the 0.1 percent when it comes to raw dollars that will be saved among taxes.
But then in an interview earlier this week, you seemed to say, "You know what, my tax plan, it's not set in stone. And maybe I'll raise taxes. Maybe I'll actually raise taxes on the rich." So I guess, which is it? Are you willing to raise taxes on 0.1 percent or not--
DONALD TRUMP:
It's definitely-- no, no, no. Let me explain how the world works, okay? I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, and income than I do. But I'll explain how it all works. I come up with the biggest tax cut by far of any candidate. Anybody. And I put it in. But that doesn't mean that's what we're going to get. We have to negotiate.
The thing I'm going to do is make sure the middle class gets good tax breaks. Because they have been absolutely shunned. The other thing, I'm going to fight very hard for business. For the wealthy, I think, frankly, it's going to go up. And you know what, it really should go up. Because the wealthy--
CHUCK TODD:
The wealthy need to pay more taxes? What do you define as wealthy, by the way--
DONALD TRUMP:
No. No, let me explain-- somebody like me. Let me explain something--somebody like me--let me explain something. I'm putting in a plan, Chuck. I have to negotiate now with senators and congressmen and lots of-- the fact that I put in a plan, it really is a floor. That's what it is. Whether we like it or not.
So I put in my plan. It's quite simple to see. It's a simplification. We lower the number of brackets. We lower the taxes on the middle class, on business. And we lower the taxes on everybody, very substantially. But I have no illusions. I don't think that's going to be the final plan. Because they are going to come to me, including the Democrats and everybody else, they're going to come to me. They're going to want to negotiate. But that's a floor. That's where we're starting.
CHUCK TODD:
So is that--
DONALD TRUMP:
Now, when it comes time to negotiate, I feel less concerned with the rich than I do with the middle class.
CHUCK TODD:
So it sounds like-- should we take that--
DONALD TRUMP:
And I feel very concerned at that.
CHUCK TODD:
--should we assume that most of your plans, then, we shouldn't take you at your word, as sort of that they're floors? What you just described? That, "You know what, it's my opening statement, but everything is negotiable--"
DONALD TRUMP:
It's not a word. Excuse me. Excuse me. It's called life, Chuck. It's not my word, of course. I put in a proposal. You know what they are? They're really proposals. People can say it's a tax plan. It's really a tax proposal. Because after I put it in, and I think you know the Senate and Congress--
CHUCK TODD:
Sure. Yeah.
DONALD TRUMP:
--you know as much as anybody, they start working with you, and they start fighting. And you know, let's see what happens. But I put in a proposal. Under my proposal, it's the biggest tax cut by far, of any candidate by far. But I'm not under the illusion that that's going to pass. They're going to come to me. They're going to want to raise it for the rich. Frankly, they're going to want to raise it for the rich more than anybody else.
But the middle class has to be protected. The rich is probably going to end up paying more. And business might have to pay a little bit more. But we're giving a massive business tax cut. Remember this, we're the highest taxed nation in the world. But this is a tax-- Chuck, this is a tax proposal--
CHUCK TODD:
Wait a minute. Let me stop you there. You just said, "Businesses might pay a little bit more." You just said, "Business might pay a little bit more, but we're going to get 'em a massive tax cut." You just said it within ten words.
DONALD TRUMP:
No, no. I didn't say it. Excuse me. I said they might have to pay a little bit more than my proposal, Chuck. I said they might have--
CHUCK TODD:
Oh, your proposal. Okay. I just wanted to get that clear.
DONALD TRUMP:
--yeah, than my proposal.
CHUCK TODD:
Fair enough.
DONALD TRUMP:
I'm not talking about more than they're paying now.
CHUCK TODD:
Got you.
DONALD TRUMP:
We're the highest taxed nation in the world. Our businesses pay more taxes than any businesses in the world. That's why companies are leaving. So they may have to pay a little bit more than my proposal, is what I mean. I assume you knew that. I assume you know that.
Basically it shows two things- Trump is spouting unicorn bull shit to get elected knowing full well it's fairy tale BS and two, he is a terrible speaker and lousy in an interview. The upcoming debates are going to be horrific, but like the man said, he could shoot somebody in the face and his followers will still love him dearly.
Post by: LevelWing on May 12, 2016, 09:44:07 PM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-meets-with-paul-ryan-other-republican-leaders-1463063702
There are some interesting points in there but overall it sounds like a positive meeting between Trump and Ryan. Ryan has not endorsed Trump yet but according to the article they were able to have positive discussions and issued a joint statement afterwards.
Quote from: Wall Street Journal
Although House Speaker Paul Ryan again stopped short of endorsing Mr. Trump, he said they found common agreement on “core principles” of the GOP, including the appointment of conservative Supreme Court judges, opposition to abortion and the desire to defeat likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in November.Given that Paul Ryan isn't exactly a true conservative, I'd like to know what his definition of a "conservative Supreme Court Justice" would be and exactly what the common ground was with Trump on that issue.
Post by: nddons on May 13, 2016, 04:45:11 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/has-donald-trump-stolen-paul-ryans-party-out-from-under-him/2016/05/11/12fd4c54-1719-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?postshare=8071463063849794&tid=ss_fb-bottom